1 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.50 & 766/2019 APHC010032382019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY, THE 25th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 50/2019 Between: 1. YANDAVA TAVITAYYA,, S/O. LATE CRASAYVA. HINDU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, LABOURER. RESIDING AT HIRAMANDALAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. YANDAVA SWAPNA, D/O. TAVITAVVA, HINDU. AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD RESIDING AT HIRAMANDALAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. YANDAVA CHINNA RAO,, S/O. TAVITAYYA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, LABOURER. RESIDING AT HIRAMANDALAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. U PRAJAPATI, S/O. GOVIND PRAJAPATI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE L AND T KOMATSU PC-300 PROCLAINER, RESIDING AT KOLLI BARAHI VILLAGE, HAJARIBAGH, JHARKHAND, PRESENTLY R/AT PVSR COMPANY. PURNI VILLAGE, KHANDWA DISTRICT MADHYA PRADESH STATE 2. PVSRSN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTC 101, TULASI HOME, PLOT NO. 9. ARORA COLONY, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. OPP. SURYA MAHAL, G.T. ROAD, SNIAKULAM DISTRICT, 2 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.50 & 766/2019 ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtaggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 12.12.2018 in MVOP.No. 478/2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Ist Additional District Judge, Srikakulam Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. L V S PRASAD BABU PUVVADA 2. MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 766/2019 Between: 1. THE UNITED IMDIA INSURANCE CO.,LTD.,, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, OPP SURYA MAHAL, GT ROAD, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. YANDAVA TAVITAYYA, S/O.LATE GASAYYA HINDU, AGED 53 YEARS, LABOURER, RESIDING AT HIRAMANDALAM VILLAGE AND MANDAIM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. YANDAVA SWAPNA, D/O.TAVITAYYA, HINDU, AGED 25 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O. HIRAMANDALAM VILLAGE AND MANDAIM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. YANDAVA CHINNA RAO, S/O.TAVITAYYA. HINDU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, LABOURER R/O. HIRAMANDALAM VILLAGE AND MANDAIM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. UMESH PRAJAPATI, , S/O.GOVIND PRAJAPATI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE L AND T KOMATSU PC-300 PROCLAINER, R/O.KOLLI BARAHI VILLAGE, HAJARIBAGH, 3 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.50 & 766/2019 JHARKHAND, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PVSR COMPANY, PURNI VILLAGE, KHANDWA DISTRICT, MP STATE. 5. PVSRSN ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 101, TULASI HOME, PLOT NO.9, ARORA COLONY, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-530 034. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court memorandum of Motor Accidents Claims Miscellaneous Appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12-12-2018 in M.V.O.P.No.478 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-1st Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 56 days in filing the above M.A.C.M.A. and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant STAY all further proceedings in judgment and decree dated 12-12-2018 in M.V.O.P.No.478 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-1St Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. L V S PRASAD BABU PUVVADA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO The Court made the following: 4 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.50 & 766/2019 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.50 OF 2019 AND 766 OF 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT: As both these appeals arise out of an Order dated 12.12.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.478 of 2016, they are being disposed of, by this Common Judgment. 2. The claimants aggrieved by order dated 12.12.2018, in M.V.O.P.No.478 of 2016 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.50 of 2019, seeking to enhance the compensation. 3. On the other hand, 3rd respondent in the said Claim Petition, i.e., the United India Insurance Company Limited preferred appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.766 of 2019, questioning the liability fastened on it. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as they were referred before the Tribunal. 5. The petitioners filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the MV Act, 1988’) and the Rules made thereunder, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of Yandava Prem Kumar (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’), in the accident that took place on 06.01.2011 at about 5.30 p.m., near PVSR Company Garage, Purni Village and Post, Khandava District, Madhya Pradesh State. The 1st petitioner 5 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.50 & 766/2019 is the father, 2nd petitioner is the sister, and 3rd petitioner is the brother, of the deceased i.e., Yandava Prem Kumar. It was the case of the petitioner that the deceased was working as Diesel Supervisor in 2nd respondent-Company. In the course of his employment, on 06.01.2011, he was pouring diesel in Excavator Machine bearing registration No.L & T Komatsu PC 300, belonging to 2nd respondent. While, pouring the diesel, 1st respondent/driver of the Excavator Machine suddenly lifted the bucket, as a result of which, the deceased fell down from the bucket of the Excavator Machine and sustained multiple fracture injuries. Immediately, the deceased was taken to Indore Hospital for treatment. However, on the way to the Hospital, the deceased died. A case in Crime No.9 of 2011 on the file of Mundi Police Station was registered against 1st respondent and later the same was investigated into, and charge sheet was filed on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khandwa. 6. After conducting inquest and postmortem examination, the dead body was handed over to the petitioners. It was the specific case of the petitioner that the deceased was working as Diesel Supervisor in 2nd respondent- Company situated at D.No.484, Purni Village, Khandwa District, for the past two (02) years from the date of accident and he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. It was further stated that the entire earnings of the deceased was being contributed to the maintenance of the family. It was further averred that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 28 years, and he was hale and healthy. On account of the death of the deceased, the 6 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.50 & 766/2019 petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing the above Claim Petition, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 7. The 1st respondent/operator of the offending Excavator Machine, in negligent manner without observing that the deceased was pouring diesel into the Excavator, lifted the bucket. It was further contended that the 1st respondent was having valid driving license and the Excavator Machine was insured with 3rd respondent, and the policy was in force and it was valid from 10.03.2010 to 09.03.2011. The petitioners, therefore, contended that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation claimed by them. 8. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent/ Insurance Company filed counter-affidavit, inter alia contending that there was a delay of 56 days in giving the complaint, and no explanation was offered as to why the same was not immediately informed to the Police concerned. It was further averred that the Excavator Machine was stationed and the same was not in movement, as such, the alleged accident does not fall under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was further stated that the name of the deceased was not tallying with the criminal case record. Inter alia, it was also stated that the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation as the petitioners failed to prove the negligence of 1st respondent/driver of the Excavator. With the above pleadings, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company prayed to dismiss the Claim Petition. 7 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.50 & 766/2019 9. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the father of the deceased was examined as PW.1, and exhibits in Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On the other hand, 3rd respondent/Insurance Company examined its Senior Assistant, as RW.1 and exhibited copy of Insurance Company as Ex.B1. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal, by order under challenge, awarded compensation of Rs.6,69,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e., 26.11.2016, till the date of realization by fastening the liability on respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Further, the Tribunal directed the 3rd respondent- Insurance Company to deposit the said amount within a period of one (01) month from the date of order. Having not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants preferred the MACMA No.50 of 2019, and questioning the liability fastened on the Insurance Company, it filed appeal vide M.A.C.M.A.No.766 of 2019. 10. Heard Sri C.S. Ramesh Babu, representing Sri Aravala Rama Rao, and Sri L.V.S. Prasad Babu, appearing for the parties. 11. Perused the material available on record. 12. It is the specific contention of the Insurance Company that liability cannot be fastened on it, inasmuch as the Excavator Machine does not fall under the definition of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said contention advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, cannot be countenanced, in view of the fact that the definition of Rule 2 (ca) of Central 8 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.50 & 766/2019 Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, excavator machine falls under the definition set out thereunder. In the circumstances, the said contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is liable to be rejected. 13. Further, a perusal of the averments made in support of the claim petition, it is clear that the accident occurred due to the negligence of 1st respondent/driver of the Excavator Machine. Though the learned counsel for the Insurance Company had contended that the petitioner failed to prove the negligence on the part of 1st respondent, it is discernible from the record that the Insurance Company examined its Senior Assistant as RW.1. 14. A perusal of the cross-examination of RW.1 would disclose that the 3rd respondent appointed a private investigator to inquire into the facts of the accident. The said evidence would further reveal that after investigating into the matter, the private investigator had submitted a report and the same was available with the 3rd respondent in its office. Despite the same, the Insurance Company did not choose to file the report before the Tribunal. 15. On the other hand, the petitioners filed copies of FIR and charge sheet. A perusal of the contents of the above documents would go to show that the accident occurred due to negligence of the 1st respondent/driver of the Excavator. In the circumstances, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, that the petitioners failed to prove the negligence on the part of 1st respondent, cannot be accepted. In view of the above findings, this Court is of the opinion that the Insurance Company is 9 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.50 & 766/2019 liable to pay compensation and accordingly, appeal filed by Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.766 of 2019 is dismissed. 16. Coming to the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.50 of 2019 filed by the petitioners is concerned, it is contended that while computing the compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6,69,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the said amount of compensation is not in tune with the guidelines framed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments. 17. It was further contended that various aspects of the matters were not considered, and certain amounts were not awarded under the conventional heads. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Tribunal did not apply appropriate multiplier while awarding compensation. This Court finds sufficient force in the said contention of the claimants inasmuch as admittedly, the deceased was aged 28 years as on the date of the accident and the appropriate multiplier would be 17, whereas the Tribunal had taken the multiplier 13. 18. The said finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and the same needs interference by this Court. At that juncture, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the deceased was unmarried, and the Tribunal instead of deducting 50% income of the deceased, had deducted 1/3rd income only. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, though the deceased was 10 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.50 & 766/2019 unmarried, but the fact remains that, the parents were depending on the deceased. Therefore, the said submission cannot be countenanced. 19. To put quietus to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court undertakes the computation of compensation that was entitled to, by the petitioners. Description of the Head Amount Entitled in Rupees Net annual income Rs. 6,000 x12 = Rs.72,000/- Future prospects at the 28 years Rs. 28,800/- (i.e.,40% of the income) Total income Rs.1,00,800/- Deductions towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3rd) Rs. 33,600/- Total loss of dependency Rs.67,200/- Multiplier of 17 for the age of 28 years Rs. 11,42,400/- (67,200x17) Loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000×3) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.12,92,400/- 20. In the result, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.50 of 2019 is allowed, and the Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs.12,92,400/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Further, the 11 TCDS, J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.50 & 766/2019 appellant-Insurance Company is directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation before the Tribunal. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the M.A.C.M.A.No.50 of 2019 filed by the claimants is allowed and the M.A.C.M.A.No.766 of 2019 preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of both appeals. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Date.25.09.2026 CVD